so it appears Biden will gladly go down the same course the libs have gone down for years now. He will pick a black women first and realize later how badly he screwed up when he discovers she had no qualifications. Yep that fake equity {which is really hate and bias} is really working out well for America
mcfarm,
Seriously????
You don't think that there are any black women qualified to be on the Supreme Court?
I have news for you dude.........there are numerous like that.
Biden is a liberal and his pick will be liberal..........get over it.
There's nothing wrong with him picking a qualified, black woman judge that is also liberal.
What the heck did you expect?
https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/01/how-biden-will-choose-the-next-supreme-court-nominee/
You would be best served by going after him on LEGIT issues, not that he's picking a qualified, black, woman liberal judge and you don't like the pick.
I'll tell you what I expected. The very same as when he picked his running mate. and QUALIFIED was not even on the list. Now if he were to miraculously pick a QUALIFIED black women then great but to judge a man's actions just watch his past. He has a history of bad decisions for this country and his first and only instinct had to be a black women, not a black QUALIFIED women,,,,and you knew that before you typed your first word. He wants equity by the lefts definition at any cost and an unqualified bunch of appointments making a mess out of policy is the result for America. Has that not been plain enough to see?
Gripe AFTER he makes his pick and give legit reasons.
Griping now tells us you have already decided....which we know is true.
Shock us and find something positive about his pick.
State something positive about his pick and I'll make it post of the week!!
There's nothing wrong with him picking a qualified, black woman judge that is also liberal.
Correct. There is nothing wrong with him picking a qualified black women. But that he has set race and sex as a top priority is wrong. Every bit as wrong as his saying he would limit his choice to a qualified white male.
That so many in this country seem incapable of understanding this is one of our root problems.
Ironically, it flies in the face of MLK's basic philosophy.
The criteria should be limited to "The Most Qualified Person" Period.
Biden's stated criteria is racist. But in today's society, we have "acceptable racism", which sadly, only perpetuates the problem.
MM, what I have decided is Biden's ability to choose is hampered by his insistence to be led by his racist/sexist instincts and his being totally controlled by the far left. Don't believe it? where have you been? Have you not watched a single conformation hearing for any of his judges this past year? They are not hard to find. Watch Senator Kennedy ask a basic first year law question and be stunned by some of the answers he gets. And yes be prepared to be embarraressed with the quality of people Biden has nominated.
PS, I am much concerned about a man in a state of total mental impairment making another poor choice for this country and being totally honest about it than being your post of the week. My priorities are fine and they are not griping. Biden has had a 1/2 a century to prove himself and he has time after time, proven himself a fool that is now in total cognitive decline, We have no time to wait and see the train wreck.
Do you guys even read your own stuff?
Biden hasn't even picked anybody and you've already condemned him and are outraged because he wants a black woman.
At least let the man make his pick..........then decide what's wrong with her.
At least that would help give the appearance that you have a tiny bit of objectivity.
There are thousands of good judges in this country and hundreds that you could make a case for that can be on the Supreme Court.
Many of them are black women.
Are you totally oblivious to the fact that Trump limited his picks to only extremely CONSERVATIVE judges.
He completely ruled out any liberal judges. Wow, that means his biased politics limited his choices and he ignored half of the good judges out there before even picking.
So it's Biden's turn to pick.
He is the president, and just like Trump..........he gets to pick on his biased politics based on his party.
Only this time, he's not only ruling out the other party but he's ruling out white people and men......based 100% on the politics.
Listen to all the white men gripe because they think the politics can't include gender or race......only political party affiliation.
You've decided to spin it as racist because Joe Biden is making a political decision based on there never being a black woman on the Supreme Court to represent the mindset of fellow Americans that are black women.
And for black women to see that they are not under represented in the judicial justice system.
Are there qualified black women to be on the Supreme Court?
Of course there are but you guys are upset before he's even made his choice....the choice that he clearly stated in his platform that got him elected.
The people in the REAL election did elect Joe Biden AFTER he said he would pick a black woman for Supreme Court.
If you don't like somebody following thru on the campaign promises that got them elected..........get more people to vote for your person next time!
Do you guys even read your own stuff?
Did you read mine? He has not made a pick, so I have nothing to say about that, and said nothing about that. His track record is dubious at best, but maybe we're in for a surprise.
I talked about his stated criteria. Basing a decision of any kind on race and/or sex is racist and/or sexist by definition. This is not debatable. Just because you may approve of certains forms of racism and/or sexism does not make them something other than racism and/or sexism. I'd like to go on the record as stating that all forms of racism and sexism are wrong. You are free to disagree and if so, we'll have to agree to disagree.
Are you totally oblivious to the fact that Trump limited his picks to only extremely CONSERVATIVE judges.
He completely ruled out any liberal judges. Wow, that means his biased politics limited his choices and he ignored half of the good judges out there before even picking.
Your thinking here here is a bit off. Trump prefered conservative judges. I agree. Since the job description of a supreme court judge is to limit their rulings to the confines defined within the constitution , I think that the label "conservative" is a qualifier for the position. Whether that judge is white/black/purple/man/woman is irrelevant as those traits have nothing,/zero/nada to do with whether the judge is qualified.
Liberal judges tend to rule meta-constitutionally, I.E. engage in judicial activism, which is contrary to the job description and therefore disqualifying. Again, white/black/purple/man/woman is not a factor that can be used as it has nothing to do with the qualifications.
Liberal/conservative traits are legitimate considerations for picking a supreme court justice. Race and/or sex are not.
"If you don't like somebody following thru on the campaign promises that got them elected..........get more people to vote for your person next time!"
MM, I have no idea what your response has to do with the dicsussion.
"I have no idea what your response has to do with the dicsussion."
I totally believe you Tim!
Let me guess.
You are saying that enough people vote for it, Racism and Sexism becomes OK.
I'll have to disagree,
Wrong guess! but that's the way TIM wants to define it though.......so we will always disagree on this point.
what the heck is this about? Mm and old white guys? https://www.conservapedia.com/Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965 mm you men old white men like these old white guys? It makes libs so mad when they learn many of their hero's were the actual racists and bigots that they just start blurting nonsense out of their mouths. Old angry white guys?.........hell why don't do the thing right and add old angry conservative Christian white guys
You can tell when somebody doesn't have a great case with the facts of 2022.............when they use what totally different people did 57 years ago(1965) to vilify people that have a completely different ideology in 2022.
This would be like the grandson of Charles Manson, graduating at the top of his class in law school and somebody claiming that he should be in prison because of what his grandfather did over 5 decades ago.
Seriously mcfarm?
All you are doing is showing the powerful evidence of how much the Democratic party has changed for the better when it comes to civil rights and you don't even realize that's exactly what you're doing.
Charles Manson's grandson is not Charles Manson.
The Democratic Party of 2022 is NOT the Democratic Party of 1965.
Go ahead and get defensive about it too if you want.
All I'm saying is that you need to at least wait to see who Biden picks before being so upset that it's going to be a black woman.
changed for the better my butt, they are pulling the same crap in spades. Quit reaching for whats not there Mm and acknowledge the stuff right out front. Voter Id ring a bell? Running millions across our boarders including may with criminal history's and many more with covid in an all out effort to garner Mexican votes? Telling Asians they cannot go to Ivy league schools so that those places are filled with African Americans instead. Do we have to jog our memories to the riots, looting and burning in the last few years and the dems support of that and defunding cops at the same time. Yep Mm those Dems out there everyday defending America much more than ever. Can you hear Scoot Jackson turning over in his grave? I am sorry I almost forgot trying to over throw a Presidential election both before and after the election was held. Not that is any big deal in the "now changed" dem playbook.
We're getting no where here MM. Lets take a step back and simplfy what I think is a simple issue.
I think it's wrong to appoint someone to a position based on their race or sex, no matter what that race or sex is.
What do you think?
OK Tim, you are so sure about this that you want to battle over it.
I see why you have your opinion. You are treating this like its in a realm like.........a position of the Olympic team based on the performance/qualifications of the competitors. Or SAT scores to get into college.
The fastest times or highest scores prove those people the most qualified........regardless of race. There is no obligation to consider diversity in picking those that qualify in those realms because it's totally based on numerically represented metrics which is what the competitors SHOULD continue to be judged on in their positions they were picked for. I agree with this.
Are judges in a similar position?
Is this a competition with each other?(other than each party making it a competition to get as many from their side appointed). Of course not. The judicial system is most effective when the following principles are applied(there are others). This has been clearly stated for a long time for objective people to follow.
Judges should have a track record of being fair.
Judges should have a track record that shows knowledge of the law and the Constitution
Judges, like juries(peers) should represent the people that they serve and have well rounded experiences that qualify them to make important decisions for ALL people of every race and gender. Diversity in the court system is essential to accomplish this.
If a court system was all men or all women or all white it would be totally counterproductive to this objective. Try as they might, it's very difficult for a person... even a judge...... to think exactly like a person of the opposite sex or opposite race no matter how objective they try to be. This is the human element and part of nature that defines cognitive bias based on experiences and genetics that can't be completely programmed out.
So in the judicial system which has a top priority of fairness and representing ALL people(minorities/women), having diversity is the only way to accomplish this.
You see this woman's skin and gender as disqualifying her before she's even picked and we don't even know anything about her.......when the objective in a fair judicial system is diversity and this is a top qualification to meet the current objective..........DIVERSITY of the judicial system to accomplish fairness and balance for ALL people in the United States.
If this was a baseball or football team and the objective was to score more runs/points than the opponent, then of course we want the players to be the best at scoring runs/points to play to accomplish that.
But in the judicial system, part of the qualifications and value of a judge to a court with many judges MUST include the unique attributes that each individual judge contributes to the overall court which strengthens its ability to represent ALL people and ALL views.
A court lacking the comprehensive diversity which represents ALL Americans should be seeking out QUALIFIED individuals that accomplish that(create balance) and equip it with individuals that represent ALL Americans fairly.
https://www.investopedia.com/racial-diversity-in-the-judiciary-5114231
Is this true Tim?
Are you against diversity in the American judicial system?
If you are FOR diversity and against this, then explain how you propose we accomplish it?
So, essentially, you say yes, race and sex are valid criteria for appointments.
I don't think either has a role. I think a judge's knowledge of the law and the constitution are the most serious requirement. A candidate for the supreme court should have a long, extensive history of applying that knowledge.
Testing the knowledge and evaluating the history should be the primary focus. DO they meet the objectives of the selecting body?
I am nearly certain that a president stating he would limit his search to white males would be lynched. And that to me reeks of hypocrisy. A principle needs to be universal to be fair.
So you are against making racial and gender diversity a top priority then?
Again, by using QUALIFIED judges.
And yes, I think when trying to create diversity of any type, by definition you are considering the race, gender of the QUALIFIED people for the job.
In many realms its totally not relevant.
For fairness and balance in the justice system?
Dugh!
"I am nearly certain that a president stating he would limit his search to white males would be lynched. And that to me reeks of hypocrisy. A principle needs to be universal to be fair."
Wow, Tim I guess that you really don't get it. The principle is DIVERSITY.
Adding more white males to a system dominated by white makes is the complete opposite of diversity.
I guess then, you really must be against diversity.
di·ver·si·ty/dəˈvərsədē,dīˈvərsədē/nounnoun: diversity
Opposite:
uniformity
I've never heard a reasonable argument in support of diversity for diversity's sake. I think it's just as wrong to limit your selection to a white male as it is to limit your selction to a black female. Seems unlikely you and I will agree on this.
There is not a seperate set of laws for people based on their race/sex, and they should not be applied differently based on the race/sex of a judge. In a case where that's not ture, you have a bad judge, and the sex/race are irrlelevant.
Justice is meant to be blind. That means that sex, race, economic status or anything else that sets one person apart from another is not a factor. In other words, equal justice under the law. When that's not the case, as appears to be true sometimes, then we have a problem worth looking into. I sincerely doubt managing the race/sex of a judge will address that. Holding all judges to the same standard, regardless of where their ancestors came from, will.
Yep, that confirms it. You really are against diversity.
I agree with you that candidates for the Supreme Court MUST be qualified but we have a huge disagreement on diversity.
Stating that its not an effective principle to increase the diverse views of entities using it to apply in their decision making for people coming from diverse backgrounds seems counter intutive and against human nature and most studies.
I guess that means its (-: time!
Not quite time for :-).. I think we're havng a productive exchange.
Your statement..
Stating that its not an effective principle to increase the diverse views of entities using it to apply in their decision making for people coming from diverse backgrounds seems counter intutive and against human nature and most studies.
is very broad and probably too general for a discussion of qualifications for Supreme Court justices. The U.S. is naturally diverse because it attracts people from all corners of the globe, and because of that, the sum of the US is far greater than the individual parts. But that brings us to the crux of the discussion. There is a massive difference between natural diversity and forced diversity.
I could spend hours on this, but in regards to supreme court justices... Our laws are the result of a diverse group coming together and deciding what "laws" should look like. It is the job of a judge to understand those laws and possess a level of reason and judgment to dispense justice based on those laws. Those qualifications are not based on, and have no corelation to sex or race.
"Forced Diversity" is an effort by an entity, usually government, to make things fair. History shows us that when government attempts to make things fair through various forms of social engineering, the results end up being very different from the hoped for results. See "Unintended consequences"
A great and very specific example is the "Fairness Doctrine". It even has "Fair" in the title, so it must be fair, right? And the intentions were so noble. It gave the FCC the ability to force broadcasters to give equal time to both sides of any issue. Sounds great, right? Who could argue with that?
But, the FCC is made up of human beings, and human beings have a hard time of agreeing on just what "Fair" means, particularly when it comes to deciding on just what "Fair Coverage" of issues means. So, broadcasters, rather than risking the rath of the empowered FCC, chose to cover fewer and fewer issues leaving their audience with a watered down product.
https://medium.datadriveninvestor.com/fear-of-government-mandated-fairness-ad336ddedc30
Ironically, one would assume the prime reason for the fairness doctrine was to limit certain activities but it was actually the opposite. Many stations chose not to air any opinion-based broadcasting so as not to find themselves on the wrong side of the Mayflower Doctrine. This policy from earlier in the Roosevelt Administration led them to refrain from taking sides in any issue rather than risk the wrath of the FCC. The sanction would be devastating — an FCC denial of their renewal application for their license.
A more general discussion by one of my favorites, Thomas Sowell, who was a student of another of my favorites, Milton Friedman. Ironically, both of these men started out as liberals, but their studies of practical econmics lead them to very conservative views.
The Fallacy of "Fairness", by Dr. Thomas Sowell | Creators Syndicate
If there is ever a contest to pick which word has done the most damage to people's thinking, and to actions to carry out that thinking, my nomination would be the word "fair." It is a word thrown around by far more people than have ever bothered to even try to define it.
This mushy vagueness may be a big handicap in logic but it is a big advantage in politics. All sorts of people, with very different notions about what is or is not fair, can be mobilized behind this nice-sounding word, in utter disregard of the fact that they mean very different things when they use that word.
Thanks Tim!
The examples that you just gave us are the EXACT same examples that I gave you earlier that I agree with you on!
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/80852/#80944
"I see why you have your opinion. You are treating this like its in a realm like.........a position of the Olympic team based on the performance/qualifications of the competitors. Or SAT scores to get into college.
The fastest times or highest scores prove those people the most qualified........regardless of race. There is no obligation to consider diversity in picking those that qualify in those realms because it's totally based on numerically represented metrics which is what the competitors SHOULD continue to be judged on in their positions they were picked for. I agree with this."
Again Tim, I agree with everything that your sources just stated BEFORE you used them. Please read my posts. None of them applies to the diversity of the US judicial system.
This is not the Fairness Doctrine in any way shape or form. We are not basing it at all on lowering the standards of qualifications to let this woman in.
This is about strengthening the court as a whole in its ability to be fair to ALL PEOPLE-AMERICANS (not fairness to the judges or their standards to become judges) by adding the vital perspective of an American that is lacking in the court.
Let me put it this way. Maybe this will help you.
If a huge company had a bunch of engineers designing and building things across America and they only took the best engineers with the highest grades and training for the past 250 years based on the highest standards but some of their structures were failing because they never took into account what the weather/climate would be like in those unique locations and it was putting enormous stress on their structures.
So the owner made a decision. "We need to hire an atmospheric engineer to become a more diverse firm to strengthen what is our weak point!"
(At most colleges, atmospheric science degrees are thru the engineering school-including my degree)
But then, some people in the company said NO! We can't do that, we need to hire only the best, most talented engineers for our company! It's not right to seek only an engineer that adds specific engineering skills. We want only the best engineers building structures in our company!
So is that company stronger or weaker after they hire an atmospheric engineer to become more diverse?
I hope that helps.
Tim, this is not an individual judge, in an individual courtroom.
This is a COURT of many judges with many opinions that represent ALL Americans.
You will note that most of their votes end up NOT being unanimous.
It's exactly that which proves the need for diversity. If we didn't need diversity and we just picked all the most qualified judges every time.............then most votes would be 9-0 because they all would think the same way about everything.
But it's NOT that way. This moves strengthens diversity............don't you agree?
Are you still against that?
Interesting how you say you agree with me while disagreeing with me :-)
So the owner made a decision. "We need to hire an atmospheric engineer to become a more diverse firm to strengthen what is our weak point!"
So, would it make a difference if the atmospheric scientist was male/female, black/white?
I don't think so. If someone isisted they limit the field of candidates to black females, the chances of missing out on one more qualified is enhanced. Not saying the very best atmospheric scientist in the world in not a black female, but if they don't look outside of that demographic, they'll never know.
I've yet to hear an argument that supports a black female on the supreme court as somehow an improvement. You seem to feel that for a minority to be judged fairly, they must be judged by another minority. I apologize if I misread, but I won't accept that argument and I think that such beliefs perpetuate the race issues in this country.
Just to make sure there is no misunderstanding, I have no objection to a black female on the supreme court, I object to limiting the search to that demographic.
"So, would it make a difference if the atmospheric scientist was male/female, black/white?"
You are fighting so, so hard to not understand the point. Are you intentionally doing this(trying to be funny) or do you seriously not get it?
The race or gender would not matter in that engineering job Tim. That was the exact point.........the specific contribution they made was the important thing.
With this next Supreme Court judge, the specific contribution IS BEING A BLACK WOMAN.
That company LIMITED ITS search to just a type of engineer that they needed to increase their diversity.
The Supreme Court makes decisions regarding race, gender and many other related issues all the time. Why wouldn't it strengthen their ability to see all American views to find justice based on the Constitution if they had a new race/gender justice that is lacking right now?
This appointee is adding something the court lacks.
Adding something that is already there.........adds what?
It's ironic too on this issue.
But it's ok to have the highest court in the land unbalanced politically towards the right) and not properly representing America based on the last presidential election.....because it was Trumps good fortune to be able to replace a liberal judge with a conservative one and guess what Tim, he intentionally, absolutely sought out a woman for the job because the liberal person he replaces was a woman.
But that was totally ok because it was a conservative woman and it was a republican doing it.
This is not ok because its a democrat president doing it and its a black woman, not a white conservative woman.
Hypocrisy out the wazoo!
You are trying to argue that blacks and females are somehow different. That being a black female is quantitatively and qualitatively different. You do realize there used to be, and sometmes still are riots over that type of thinking.
Your flawed analogy of the atmospheric engineer made my point for me. The race and sex had nothing to do with the qualifications just as would be the case for the supreme court justice. He/she may have gone to Harvard or Yale or some state college somewhere, and they may be liberal, or they may be conservative. Those are quantitative difference affection the skills they bring. Thier race does not.
You seem to think I am dense for rejecting your argument while I think you are dense for making it.
I made every point that I can think of, including the examples of previous republican presidents doing the exact same thing.
Tim,
We're at the stage now where the scientist in me is just trying to analyze your behavior/responses because all the relevant points have been stated.
(-:
I should add that it was YOU that was not content on ending with a (-: (because you're always convinced that you're right and have more to say) earlier and I gave you exactly what you were asking for.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/80852/#80955
Again, this is just an analysis of your behavior at this point.
It really doesn't matter how many presidents of which party have used irrelevant, sexist or racist criteria to make an appointment of any kind. It's till wrong. I'm sorry you can't seem to understand that there is no such thing as "acceptable racism" or "acceptable sexism", but I don't know how else to explain it..
So you're right. It's time to end with a :-).
what I got out of the entire MM/Tim debate was that if the last two candidates came down to a black liberal women and a white conservative man MM would choose the women no matter if the white conservative had better qualifications .....thus the lowering of standards we see all across America all to make some "feel" better....not that helps America or minoritys one bit.
Shows that you didn’t comprehend anything that I stated mcfarm.
All I can do is suggest that you read it again.
Only next time, try to forget that you are positive that you know what it says.
And remember.....YOU don’t get to tell us what I said with a mischaracterizatiin of what I said.
That’s called using a straw man argument.
If you can’t get what I said after I made it crystal clear.....I did my best and can only suggest you read it again.
If you actually want to understand my points, somehow, I think it wouldn’t be that hard to at least understand the points enough to not make up your own version of what you want me to have said.
You will note too mcfarm, like with many of the discussions with Tim that go like this.....you want to have a debate to prove that you are right.....I’m past that and am just analyzing what you are doing and why you act this way.
The hope Is that you would catch a glimpse of the reality and use it in a positive way.....surprise me and actually do that.
Following the nomination of Amul Thapar to the Sixth Circuit, it was reported that Trump might try to season some of the candidates on his list with federal appellate court experience prior to potential nomination to the Supreme Court.[44] Indeed, Trump later elevated a number of state court judges from his list to fill vacant positions on the federal Courts of Appeals: Joan Larsen (Sixth Circuit), David Stras (Eighth Circuit), Allison H. Eid (Tenth Circuit), Don Willett (Fifth Circuit), and Britt Grant (Eleventh Circuit). Conversely, two previous Trump appointees to the Courts of Appeals—Amy Coney Barrett (Seventh Circuit) and Kevin Newsom (Eleventh Circuit)—were later added to the list of potential Supreme Court candidates.
Despite speculation that Trump might consider other candidates for a possible second Supreme Court nomination, he said in May 2017 that he would make his next appointment from the same list he used to choose Gorsuch (the combined 21 names given on either of the two lists he released during the campaign), describing the list as "a big thing" for him and his supporters.[45] Trump added five further candidates to the list on November 17, 2017.
Trump's nominations. How many men and how many women. Seems he wanted a women but nominated several very well qualified candidates. Sure seems like the reasonable thing to do.
Since you brought it up mcfarm, I'll be glad to remind you about what actually happened.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QncmqH9VR0A
This article is more than 1 year old
President says he has ‘obligation’ to fill the vacancy created by the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54216710
metmike: Perfectly fine for Trump............but not for Biden? How do you figure?
gee I don't know MM, maybe most every quote about Trumps nomination includes the word "qualified" or best "qualified" or even most "qualified"...words we used to use before equity and covid completely took about 60 Iq points from this nation.
Thanks mcfarm,
"maybe most every quote about Trumps nomination includes the word "qualified" or best "qualified"
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-01-31/black-woman-supreme-court
“The person I will nominate will be somebody with extraordinary qualifications, character, experience and integrity,” Biden said. “And that person will be the first Black woman ever nominated to the United States Supreme Court.”
metmike: Again, this is an analysis for why you are taking a position that your party tells you to take and I'm continuing, above to use your doubling down on the hypocracy against you.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
metmike: I think the right just blatantly blew their chance to gain alot of black voters in the elections to come(and women) by objecting so strongly to Biden's nominating a qualified black woman. You guys keep shooting yourself in the foot, Trump having done serious damage already.
Weakest opposition in history..............and you are causing so many self inflicted wounds.
And vehemently defending the actions causing the wounds/doubling down, instead of recognizing they are bleeding wounds.....not trying to heal them and do more healthy things for the party.
Republicans Have a Historic Opportunity With Black Voters
Started by metmike - Jan. 10, 2022, 8:25 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/80192/
You seriously don't get it if you think that having a black woman on the court doesn't STRENGTHEN the Supreme Court's ability to represent ALL Americans in their decisions with absolutely nothing lost in qualifications.
And the ones in America that were UNDERrepresented..............are also voters!
get back the black voters? Pretty sure the R's set records last election for black and mexicans
Right mcfarm,
Just keep repeating rhetoric to convince yourself to not believe anything that I say.
"the R's set records last election for black and mexicans"
"the R's set records last election for black and mexicans"
"the R's set records last election for black and mexicans"
I wouldn't call the reality of how blacks and HISPANICS have been voting exactly something to be bragging out below.
In fact, anybody that seriously cared about changing the facts below would be responding 100% differently than your response........but suit yourself.
Go ahead and continue to live in a world of make believe based on a far right manufactured world that tells you what you want to believe and completely ignore any authentic facts that I try to show you here.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/black-men-drifted-democrats-toward-trump-record-numbers-polls-show-n1246447 thought I remembered something like this